[tt] WP: Joel Kotkin and Ali Modarres: Hot World? Blame Cities.

[Premise Checker]

Joel Kotkin and Ali Modarres: Hot World? Blame Cities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101201884_pf.html
7.10.14

It's all the suburbs' fault. You know, everything -- traffic
congestion, overweight kids, social alienation. Oh, and lest we
forget, global warming and rising energy costs, too.

That latest knock against the burbs has caught on widely. With
their multiplying McMansions and exploding Explorers, the burbs are
the reason we're paying so much for gas and heating oil and spewing
all those emissions that are heating up the atmosphere -- or so a
host of urban proponents tells us. It's time to ditch the burbs and
go back to the city. New York, Boston, Chicago -- these densely
packed metropolises are "models of environmentalism," declares John
Norquist, the former Milwaukee mayor who now heads the Congress for
a New Urbanism.

But before you sell your ranch house in Loudoun County and plunk
down big bucks for that cozy condo in the District, take a closer
look at the claims of big cities' environmental superiority. Here's
one point that's generally relegated to academic journals and
scientific magazines: Highly concentrated urban areas can
contribute to overall warming that extends beyond their physical
boundaries.

Studies in cities around the world -- Beijing, Rome, London, Tokyo,
Los Angeles and more -- have found that packed concentrations of
concrete, asphalt, steel and glass can contribute to a phenomenon
known as "heat islands" far more than typically low-density,
tree-shaded suburban landscapes. As an October 2006 article in the
New Scientist highlighted, "cities can be a couple of degrees
warmer during the day and up to 6¿ C [11 degrees Fahrenheit]
warmer at night." Recent studies out of Australia and Greece, as
well as studies on U.S. cities, have also documented this
difference in warming between highly concentrated central cities
and their surrounding areas.

This is critical as we deal with what may well be a period of
prolonged warming. Urban heat islands may not explain global
warming, but they do bear profound environmental, social, economic
and health consequences that reach beyond city boundaries. A study
of Athens that appeared this year in the journal Climatic Change
suggested that the ecological footprint of the urban heat island is
1 1/2 to two times larger than the city's political borders.

Further, urban heat islands increase the need for air conditioning,
which has alarming consequences for energy consumption in our
cities. Since air conditioning systems themselves generate heat,
this produces a vicious cycle. Some estimate that the annual cost
of the energy consumption caused by the urban heat island could
exceed $1 billion.

This is not to say that big buildings can't be made more energy
efficient by using new techniques, such as high-tech skin designs,
special construction materials to reduce energy consumption, green
roofs and passive cooling. But one big problem is that making large
buildings green also makes them much more expensive, so that
they're less and less affordable for middle-class and working-class
families.

Low-density areas, on the other hand, lend themselves to much less
expensive and more environmentally friendly ways of reducing heat.
It often takes nothing more than double-paned windows to reduce the
energy consumption of a two- or three-story house. Shade can bring
it down even further: A nice maple can cool a two-story house, but
it can't quite do the same for a 10-story apartment building.

Focusing on the suburbs has the added virtue of bringing change to
where the action is. Over the past 40 years, the percentage of
people opting to live in cities has held steady at 10 to 15
percent. And since 2000, more than 90 percent of all metropolitan
growth -- even in a legendary new planners' paradise such as
Portland, Ore. -- has taken place in the suburbs.

So we shouldn't be trying to wipe out suburbs. Even with changes in
government policy, it would be hard to slow their growth. Europe
has strict zoning and highly subsidized mass transit -- policies
that are supposed to promote denser development -- but even so,
their cities are suburbanizing much like American ones. "Sprawl
cities," notes Shlomo Angel, an urban planning expert at the
Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, also are becoming
ever more common throughout much of Asia and the developing world.

Here's an Earth-to-greens message: Instead of demonizing the
suburbs, why not build better, greener ones and green the ones we
already have?

One approach might be to embrace what one writer, Wally Siembab,
has dubbed "smart sprawl." Encouraging this sort of development
will require a series of steps: reducing commuters' gas consumption
with more fuel-efficient cars, dispersing work to centers close to
where workers live and promoting continued growth in home-based
work. We'll also have to protect open spaces by monitoring
development and establishing land conservation based on public and
private funding, the latter coming from developers who wish to work
in suburbs.

Building what we call "an archipelago of villages" seems far more
reasonable than returning to industrial-age cities and mass transit
systems. For the most part, the automobile has left an indelible
imprint on our cities, and in our ever-more-dispersed economy, it
has become a necessity.

This is not to say that transit of some kind -- perhaps more
cost-efficient and flexible dedicated busways, or local shuttles --
can't play a role in serving those who can't or would rather not
drive. But short of a crippling fuel shortage or some other
catastrophic event, it's highly unlikely that we'll ever see the
widespread success of heavily promoted strategies such as dense,
transit-oriented developments or the wholesale abandonment of the
suburbs.

We can accommodate our need for space and still leave ample room
for a flourishing natural environment, as well as for agriculture.
By preserving open space and growing in an environmentally friendly
manner, we can provide a break from the monotony of concrete and
glass and create ideal landscapes for wildlife preservation.

Such notions -- developed before the term "green" existed -- go
back to a host of visionaries such as Ebenezer Howard, James Rouse,
Frederick Law Olmsted, Frank Lloyd Wright and Victor Gruen. And
they have already been put into practice. Starting in the 1960s in
his development of Valencia, north of Los Angeles, Gruen envisioned
a "suburbia redeemed" that mixed elements of the urban and the
rural.

Valencia's elaborate network of 28 miles of car-free paseos --
paths designed for pedestrians and bicyclists -- helped make the
natural environment accessible to residents. Gruen also recognized
the commercial appeal of such an environment. A 1992 ad for the
development featured a smiling girl saying: "I can be in my
classroom one minute and riding my horse the next. I don't know
whether I'm a city or country girl."

Similarly, The Woodlands, a sprawling development 27 miles from
downtown Houston, is a model for a greener suburbia in a region not
much celebrated for its environmental values. The Woodlands name,
said its former president, Roger Galatas, was seen not as "just
real estate hype" but as part of a plan to allow development
without destroying forest lands and natural drainage.

In the Washington area, Reston and Columbia, the latter the
brainchild of legendary Maryland developer James Rouse, have become
far more than mere bedroom communities; they have become places, or
villages, in themselves.

All these places evoke a more environmentally friendly suburbanism,
which also can be promoted in areas that did not benefit from the
foresight of a Gruen or a Rouse. Town centers, revived older
shopping districts, even re-engineered malls can all be part of a
greener, more energy-efficient future in a large number of
communities. And this process is already well underway.

Dragooning Americans into a dense urban lifestyle that's attractive
to only a relatively small minority isn't the best way to address
concerns about energy and resource depletion or global warming.
Instead, we need to take gradual, sensible, realistic steps to
improve the increasingly dispersed places where most of us choose
to live and work.

Joel Kotkin is a fellow at Chapman University and author of "The
City:

A Global History." Ali Modarres is associate director of the Pat
Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University at
Los Angeles.